Follow NBC News

Here's why Tuesday's race in Trump Country is so competitive

Rick Saccone and President Trump wave to the crowd at the conclusion of a Trump campaign rally on March 11, 2018, in Moon Township, Pennsylvania. Saccone is the Democratic nominee for the 18th congressional district special election.Raymond Thompson / for NBC News

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

First Read is your briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter

WASHINGTON — In 2016, Donald Trump won Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district by 20 points, 58 percent to 38 percent. And in 2012, Mitt Romney won it by 17 points, 58 percent to 41 percent. But when Democrat Conor Lamb takes on Republican Rick Saccone in tomorrow’s special congressional election to fill the PA-18 seat, the race appears to be a pure 50-50 contest.Here are three reasons why the race outside of Pittsburgh is so competitive:

1. The Democrats’ enthusiasm advantage: From Kansas and South Carolina to Virginia and Alabama, Democrats — win or lose — have overperformed in most of the major races over the past year in the Trump Era.

2. Scandal isn’t helping the GOP: The reason there’s a PA-18 special election in the first place is due to the resignation of anti-abortion Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., who left his seat after allegedly encouraged his lover to terminate her pregnancy. "You guys can decide why the stakes are high nationally," Lamb said, per NBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald. "I think for our people, they feel very let down by people like Tim Murphy, who were hypocrites." And remember, parties that have to defend a seat vacated as a result of scandal typically have a hard time — see Democrats who lost Anthony Weiner’s congressional seat in 2011.

3. Lamb is viewed as the better candidate: Democrat Conor Lamb has outraised and outspent Republican Rick Saccone over the airwaves (although GOP outside groups have more than made up the gap). On the ground, NBC’s Seitz-Wald has noticed a lack of energy coming from the Saccone campaign. “Have never been to a political event quite as low energy as Rick Saccone's ‘GOTV Rally’ Friday night. No more than 2 dozen volunteers, many from out-of-state, who complained the locals were unenthused,” he tweeted. And even Republicans have admitted that Lamb is the superior candidate. “Candidate quality matters, and when one candidate outraises the other 5-to-1, that creates real challenges for outside groups trying to win a race,” GOP strategist Corry Bliss told Politico.

Add them all up — Democratic enthusiasm, GOP scandal and a superior Dem candidate — and you see why this race is so close, even in Trump Country. By the way, those same three features defined last December’s Alabama Senate race, and we saw how that race turned out.

Our initial instinct isn’t to hype up a presidential race that’s still two years away, but there were several developments that were hard to ignore. First, Trump unveiled his 2020 slogan — “Keep America Great!”

TODD: Do you think [Trump] needs to be challenged from somebody who espouses your views?FLAKE: Yes, I do. I do. I mean, it would be a tough go in a Republican primary. The Republican Party is the Trump party right now. But that's not to say it will stay that way.

And also on “Meet” yesterday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., wouldn’t answer the question if she would serve a full term if she wins re-election in November.

TODD: If you win reelection this year are you going to pledge to serve a full six year term?WARREN: So look, I am not running for president of the United States. I am running for the United States Senate. 2018. Massachusetts. Whoohoo...TODD: I take it as a no you're not pledging to serve your full six year term if you win reelection?WARREN: I already told you. I have no intention of running for the United States — for president.

“President Donald Trump took the first step toward arming America's teachers on Sunday night, promising Justice Department assistance to help fund firearms training for school personnel,” NBC’s Alex Johnson writes. “The proposal would also seek to bolster firearm background checks, expand mental health programs and encourage military veterans and retired law enforcement officers to take up careers in education. But it doesn't include a proposal the president floated March 1 to raise the minimum legal age to buy semi-automatic weapons from 18 to 21, an idea the National Rifle Association vigorously opposes.”

Asked on “Today” why Trump has backed away on raising the age limit, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — who had a rough interview on “60 Minutes” — responded, “The plan is really the first step in a more lengthy process. And the proposals the president has put forward really encompass a lot of things that are supported on a broad bipartisan basis.”

The New York Times asks the question. “‘The ironies abound,’ said Robert S. Litwak, the director of international security studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars and the author of ‘Preventing North Korea’s Nuclear Breakout.’ ‘The man who wrote “The Art of the Deal” has staked out a position that the Iran deal was the worst one in history,’ he added. ‘And now he has to show that he can do much better, with a far harder case.’”

“[CIA Director Mike] Pompeo acknowledged that Mr. Trump, given his disparagement of the Iran deal reached by the Obama administration, will have to get a better deal out of Mr. Kim. ‘I think that’s the case,’ he told the host, Margaret Brennan, adding that he thought Mr. Trump would be negotiating from a greater position of strength. That is a debatable notion. Mr. Kim has driven the pace of this diplomatic effort so far, and American officials have conceded surprise at his boldness. And if Mr. Trump pulls out of the Iran deal, Mr. Kim may well wonder why he should negotiate with the United States if a subsequent president can simply pull the plug on any agreement.”

It was exactly one week ago when former Trump aide Sam Nunberg made those multiple TV appearances, initially saying he would defy special counsel Robert Mueller. And here he was yesterday, telling MSNBC’s Alex Witt that he answered all of Mueller’s questions.

WITT: Did you refuse to answer any questions?NUNBERG: Absolutely not. I don't refuse to answer any questions. What I say is, ‘I dont know.’ And there weren’t many incidences of that.